Can the parties choose subordinate rights to protect patent infringement?

The people's court shall allow the parties to waive their independent claims and voluntarily choose subordinate claims to determine the scope of patent protection. Paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Patent Law stipulates that the scope of protection of the patent right for invention or utility model shall be subject to the contents of its claims. Paragraph 1 of Article 2 1 of the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law stipulates that patent claims shall have independent claims or subordinate claims. Because the "claim" mentioned in Article 56 1 of the Patent Law is not limited to the "independent claim" stipulated in Article 2 1 of the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law, it should also include the "dependent claim" stipulated in the Detailed Rules for the Implementation. "Dependent claims" are additional technical features, which further define the claims cited by them, including independent claims, so the scope of patent protection defined by dependent claims is smaller than that defined by independent claims or the claims cited by them. Therefore, in the case that the parties give up the independent claim and voluntarily choose the subordinate claim as the basis for the scope of patent protection, this choice does not violate the law and does not harm the public interest, and the people's court should allow it. 2? The parties' choice of subordinate claims to determine the scope of patent protection has nothing to do with whether the patent has gone through invalid procedures, but it has something to do with whether the case is terminated. As mentioned above, since the parties' choice of dependent claims to determine the scope of patent protection does not violate the law and does not harm the public interest, a patentee should be allowed to choose dependent claims to determine the scope of patent protection regardless of whether the patent is declared invalid or not. However, if the subordinate creditor's rights selected by one party are not legally stable and conform to the circumstances of suspension of litigation stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations of our hospital, the people's court shall suspend the litigation. For example, when the patent right is a utility model patent, no matter whether it is an independent claim or a subordinate claim of the utility model patent, it does not have legal stability because it has not been substantially examined. There is even no preliminary evidence that the utility model patent has legal stability, or the search report provided preliminarily proves that all the claims of the utility model patent lack novelty and creativity. In this case, one party can still give up the independent claim and choose the subordinate claim as the basis for determining the scope of patent protection. However, because the selected subordinate claim is not legally stable, if the other party requests to declare the patent invalid and applies for suspension of the lawsuit within the defense period, the people's court shall suspend the lawsuit and resume the lawsuit after the patent invalidation result is made.